Neighbours blocking shared Access-way - no dropped Kerb

Mrs_Imp

makara wrote: »

I doubt it - they are avoiding paying for a Resident Parking permit (about £60 per year) - and are tight and slippery as eels.

Or maybe they're just super busy with work etc, and have forgotten about registering with HMRC. You could do the neighbourly thing and contact HMRC for them

melanzana

OK.

As someone else said, it is either a parking spot or it's not.

If it is, deeds must say whether it is for you or neighbour. Cannot see it being shared. That is looking for trouble, as OP has discovered.

So as I see it, and I could be wrong, it is just shared access to the rear of both properties, for the purposes of bringing the bins out, and maybe getting garden stuff delivered etc.

So, when the deeds are examined, and that proves that it is shared pedestrian access only, then put up a bollard or some other thing that prevents parking. But OP, you will NOT be able to park there either. But that to me is the best outcome.

Hard to believe that it is a parking spot with no drop on the road outside it though.

melanzana

And another thing, sorry.

If it is just pedestrian access to both your back gardens, why in the name of X did the developer not just put a little wall mid way down the alley, so each of you have access independently, and NO PARKING!

End of Terrace, or semi detached set up, if you get me!

That is very puzzling to me anyway.

Trebor16

ChumLee wrote: »

No, waiting paitently for you to provide your evidence. Good job I have plenty of time :whistle:

I have expressed an opinion, if you want to debunk that opinion then go and find some evidence. I won't be holding my breath waiting.

ChumLee

Trebor16 wrote: »

I have expressed an opinion, if you want to debunk that opinion then go and find some evidence. I won't be holding my breath waiting.

You made a sweeping statement contrary to the road traffic act and have backed it up with nothing. If you bothered to read the act you'll find yourself in the wrong.

makara

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

Or maybe they're just super busy with work etc, and have forgotten about registering with HMRC. You could do the neighbourly thing and contact HMRC for them

I like the idea


- although if it's "cash under the table", how would HMRC be able to prove anything?


Unless you're angling at the mere involvement of Her Majesty's lot enough to frighten them from pulling these silly stunts in future.

makara

melanzana wrote: »

And another thing, sorry.

If it is just pedestrian access to both your back gardens, why in the name of X did the developer not just put a little wall mid way down the alley, so each of you have access independently, and NO PARKING!

I think these are 1930s (or maybe late 1920s) Semis - and I'm guessing that at the time of construction, no one anticipated people ever using them for car parking.


Fast forward to (at latest) 1970s / 1980s - and everyone else in the street suddenly had the kerbs dropped, and back-garden fences partly torn down (to allow drive-in Garages for both the left and right semis) - except ours.


So I'm guessing no one ever put a wall in the middle just in case we (or next door) followed suit.


Then again - until these people turned up, there was never any issue - it was share and share alike - no one from next door (until the current lot) dictated to us that they and only they had the sole right.


And certainly no one "loaned" it out to Airport Parkers!

bod1467

Deleted_User wrote: »

What you need is like I said, a blanket ban on anyone parking there at all e.g no vehicles regardless if it is yours, a visitor or a tradesman. It is not a parking space, it is access to 2 properties and that is all.

ChumLee wrote: »

But that's not what he wants to hear.

Seriously folks - don't feed.

Trebor16

ChumLee wrote: »

You made a sweeping statement contrary to the road traffic act and have backed it up with nothing. If you bothered to read the act you'll find yourself in the wrong.

As you haven't specifically quoted the relevant section of the RTA to back up your stance I think we can just disregard you as a thread spoiler who is being contrary just for the sake of it.

Trebor16

ChumLee wrote: »

You made a sweeping statement contrary to the road traffic act and have backed it up with nothing. If you bothered to read the act you'll find yourself in the wrong.

Would you be relying on section 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 by any chance to back up your wonky opinions? Well, that's not the Road Traffic Act for starters. It also refers to obstruction of the road.

With the best will in the world a car parked in the gap between the OP's house and his neighbour, with no drop down kerb access to the road is not going to be classified as a road under the act, apart from in your peculiar world:D